Can a Society Ban What It Believes is Wrong?

You've heard politicians say they're morally or personally opposed to something but refuse to "impose" their beliefs on others. If they were referring to something like gambling, then I'd agree that they can't impose this on those who don't think gambling is wrong. But what about something like slavery? Even though Southerners believed in it, the Union banned it anyway. Why? What's the difference? It's because gambling is not an act of injustice, while slavery is. That's why societies have a right to ban unjust acts to protect the common good. So next time you hear politicians say they're morally opposed to something but will not "impose" their beliefs on others, beware! If it deals with an act of injustice, then this means they're either spineless, or lacking in intelligence. Would you vote for such politicians?

Common Sense

I heard on the news this morning that a man with a deadly type of TB was quarantined, even though it was not considered highly contagious. The health officials said they wanted to balance personal liberty vs. public safety. In this case, they decided to take precautions to protect the public. I asked myself, "Why didn't they do the same with AIDS?" Like this TB, AIDS is deadly but not highly contagious. So why not quarantine those infected with AIDS? It's just common sense. I knew quite a few people who caught AIDS and died from it. I was just wondering, "How many of them would still be alive today if those infected a long time ago had been quarantined in the first place?"